Archive

Posts Tagged ‘history’

Possible Medical Explanation for Joe Biden’s Obvious Cognitive Decline

August 11, 2019 4 comments

If you have watched more than a couple of Joe Biden’s recent public appearances where he had to speak extemporaneously, you might have noticed something peculiar. He often rambles about a topic without focus and also says stuff that highlights his inability to properly recall recent events. While everyone of us, regardless of age, will occasionally talk like that- Biden’s recent behavior is odd because it is far more frequently than would be the case for an otherwise healthy person of his age, especially one who has spent his life as a public figure. Compare him to Bernie Sanders, who is an year or two older than him, but still very sharp and in command of the facts. So this is not just about Biden’s age, something which becomes more obvious as we look deeper.

Compare his public speaking ability in 2019 to 2008 or even 2012. Go ahead and watch the entire vice-presidential debates from 2012 where he performs very well against Paul Ryan. Or watch his earlier speeches, debates or townhalls. My point is that Joe Biden was verbally adept (albeit ‘politically incorrect’) and mentally sharp for decades, even if he occasionally flubbed up things. Now see how he performed during the first two DNC debates and at numerous recent events since (link 1, link 2, link 3). Saying that poor kids are just as bright as white kids before hastily correcting himself, confusing Theresa May with Margaret Thatcher and claiming that he was VP during the Parkland school shooting in 2018 in spontaneous speeches during the past few days, combined with his performance during those debates is hard to dismiss as simple gaffes.

While I am no fan of diagnosing illness without properly examining a patient in person, there is a a plausible explanation for Joe Biden recently obvious cognitive decline. To understand what I am getting at, we have to first talk about an interesting but little known aspect of his medical history. In 1988, Joe Biden had surgery to treat a couple of aneurysms in his brain. The surgeries were apparently successful and after a 7-month absence from public life, he was back to normal and has had no more large aneurysms since then. All of this is good.. but have you ever wondered what causes cerebral or intra-cranial aneurysms? The short answer is that most are caused by certain cardiovascular conditions (hypertension, smoking, cocaine use etc) or they are genetic in nature. But a decent number of them are idiopathic aka without any apparent cause.

Regardless of the cause, the general mechanism of aneurysm formation in blood vessels is fairly similar and involves a section of some artery or arteriole becoming mechanically weaker than its neighbor because the underlying vascular wall is not being properly maintained by the body’s repair system. These weak segments usually develop in parts experiencing especially high blood pressure, near bifurcation points, within tight loops etc. The key point is that people who have one aneurysm have a significantly higher risk of getting another one, even if it is smaller. Emilia Clarke from ‘Game of Thrones’ suffered something like this years ago when she was in her 20s. To be clear, I am not claiming that Joe Biden has a large aneurysm in his brain right now.

What I am suggesting is a bit different. See.. people with one or more brain aneurysm, even after successful treatment, are at a significantly higher risk for microaneurysms, small subarachnoid bleeds and often have other cerebrovascular issues as they age. And this where things start get interesting or bad. The way your body reacts to small internal injuries and bleeds changes as you age. In the brain, even small and asymptomatic but repeated bleeds in old age leads to the increase in levels of soluble beta-amyloid and hyperphosphorylation of tau protein in neurons, which are calling cards of Alzheimer’s-type brain damage. The thing is.. most cases of Alzheimer’s display mixed vascular and neuronal pathology and there is tons of evidence that those processes feed into each other. Most cases of dementia in people over 75 are of the mixed type.

It is therefore likely that Biden is displaying symptoms of cerebrovascular dysfunction with a bit of classical Alzheimer’s type pathology. To reiterate, this is not unique to him, as those who have experienced mechanical cerebrovascular trauma (bad car accidents, aneurysms and other head injuries)when they were young or middle-aged have a significantly higher risk of senile dementia or impaired cerebrovascular function as they reach their 70s and beyond. In fact the same is true for any other organs or parts of the human body, from kidneys to bone joints, where damage or trauma in youth can often manifest itself as significantly reduced function in old age- even if the initial damage was treated and healed satisfactorily.

But why does any of this matter? Isn’t Trump not much better and probably on Adderall? Well.. here is why. At this moment, Biden is still the front-runner among those seeking the democratic party nomination for 2020 and older black primary voters are solidly behind a guy whose actions ruined the lives of their children and grandchildren, by the millions. At this moment, his handlers are shielding him from unscripted appearances and keeping his public exposure to a minimum. However keeping him away from unscripted appearances is going to become increasingly harder as we near the real campaign and election day. While other democratic contenders have, so far, not made his cognitive decline an issue- it is going to come out, one way or the other.

To make matters worse, if Biden ends up as the presidential nominee of democratic party, Trump is going to make his cognitive decline an issue for rest of the campaign. Between his obvious cognitive decline, inability of democarts to motivate voters beyond their base and sad obsession with ‘gun control’, it is likely we might see a repeat of 2016- where Trump loses the popular vote by somewhere between 3 and 5 million but ends up winning the electoral college and thus gets reelected. The question, then, is how do we avoid that outcome. In my opinion, Biden in 2020 is the equivalent of HRC in 2016, but with far more disastrous consequences.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Risk of Autism is Such a Strong Driver for Anti-Vaxxer Movement

June 22, 2019 9 comments

As regular readers know, I have written posts about why the modern anti-vaccination movement exists in the first place. It seems that most people, especially those indulge in gratuitous virtue display on social-media, want to attribute it all to parental ignorance, gullibility or stupidity. These dummies are intent on doing so even though the socio-economic and educational profile of those involved in the movement clearly suggests that is not the case. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the anti-vaccination movement is one outcome of a medical system driven by profits.. and let us not pretend that physicians are altruistic people solely driven by a burning need to help others. Also, let us stop pretending that the medical profession still retains the kind of public trust it used to enjoy 2-4 decades ago. It doesn’t and for good reason.

A few months ago, I started writing a short series on why persecution of anti-vaxxers will backfire on believers of scientism. While I intend to, hopefully soon, write more parts for that series- I am going to digress a bit in this post and talk about the twin concerns which seem to be driving the modern anti-vaccination movement. Ana as you will soon see, there is a specific reason behind my decision to not roll this post into the second part of that series. A couple of days ago, I came across a long-form journalism piece in Jezebel (of all places) about the anti-vaxxer movement. In that piece, and in responses to it on social media sites, I noticed a pattern which many (including the author of that piece) were unable or unwilling to notice. To make a long story short, many hip and trendy virtue posers seems to be oblivious to why the risk of autism and auto-immune illnesses is such a potent driver behind the anti-vaxxer movement- especially in USA.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that vaccines causes autism. What I am talking about is much more nuanced and it is recommended that you read the post completely before commenting. So let us begin by talking about Autism or more precisely the history of that diagnosis. In previous eras, children and adults who display symptoms or behavior which are today considered to be part of Autism Spectrum Disorder were considered as “retarded”, “special”,”different,”feeble-minded”, “quirky” etc depending on the nature and degree of their condition. For almost all of human history, such kids and adults were generally treated with varying degrees of compassion and patience. It also helped that prior to age of capitalism, extended social safety nets were able to accommodate and take care of such people. Large-scale institutionalization of such people began only after the mid-1800s and even then only in the allegedly civilized “west”.

My point is that, for almost all of human history, people with what we today lump under the label of autism were not seen as ill or suffering from a disease. They were merely seen as a bit to somewhat different from normal people. I cannot resist the irony of pointing out that people from previous eras actually had a far more humane outlook towards people with such conditions. So how did the label of ASD and rapid increase in its reported incidence come about? Well.. after 1960s, it became basically impossible in the west to institutionalize people with mental conditions or psychiatric diseases. However, unlike serious depression or schizophrenia etc, what we today classify under rubric of ASD wasn’t an illnesses in the traditional sense of that word. To put it another way, there is no consistent neuro-chemical or neuro-anatomical abnormality in everyone (or most people) diagnosed with ASD. Also, you cannot treat it with drugs- at least consistently.

So why does any of this matter? Well.. see, once you classify something as a disease, it has to have a cause. In other words, people started trying to find the cause of what we today know as ASD only after it was reclassified as a disease. It certainly did not help that ASD covers a range of conditions from borderline aspyness to full-blown inability to learn and interact with people. To make another long story short, we still have not been able to develop a robust hypothesis for why some people end up being diagnosed with ASD. While there is is clearly a hereditary competent to these conditions, only 15-20 % of the siblings (at most) of such people also display signs of ASD. In other words, even your hair or eye color exhibits far greater levels of inheritability than ASD. The subtext here is that ASD appears to more developmental than inherited.

Let us now talk about the incidence of diagnosed ASD in the west, specifically USA. According to the CDC, 1 in 59 kids end up being diagnosed with ASD. We can easily round up that number to 1 in 50 or 2%. To make matters worse, about 14% of kids have special educational requirements with almost a third of that being due to learning disabilities. Which is a nice way of saying that about 5% or 1 in 20 kids have learning disabilities severe enough to require intervention and special attention. Did I mention that most people who have children nowadays have only one or two. Are you now starting to see why people are so concerned about anything which might raise the risk of their getting ASD? But it gets worse, much worse, in USA.

Unlike all other developed countries with some form of universal healthcare and long-term illness/ disability support system- USA has nothing even remotely approaching universal healthcare let lone a social safety net for chronically ill or disabled people. To make yet another long (and sordid) story short, the considerable and artificially inflated expenses of caring for a child with moderate to severe ASD can ruin even solidly middle-class families. It is therefore not surprising that parents in USA (and other “western” countries with mediocre profit-driven healthcare systems) are especially vigilant about anything which might potentially increase their child’s risk of developing ASD. It does not help that the rapid increase in ASD coincided with the expansion of childhood vaccination schedule to Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox etc.

It also does not help that usually transient neurological disorders are known to be associated with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Are you beginning to understand why the anti-vaxxer movement has kept gaining strength, especially in USA? But.. but.. some of you might say “what about the common good” or “maintaining herd immunity”? My answer is as follows: you cannot expect people to care about the greater good of a society which, in turn, ignores (or worse, monetizes) the suffering of disabled or chronically-ill people. Does society in USA make sure that caring for a child with ASD does not pauperize his or her parents? If it doesn’t, don’t expect the affected parents or others around them to play ball. Pretending that their concerns are not genuine or they are stupid is also not likely to get them on your side.

One more thing, pretending that measles or chickenpox are life-threatening in otherwise healthy and incompetent children is not a smart idea and likely to reduce your credibility even further. While both illnesses can put a very small percentage of affected children in the hospital, death or permanent disability from either disease is pretty rare- easily less than 1 in 500 and usually far lower. More importantly, a lot of anti-vaxxer parents (especially in USA) would rather take their chances with a 1 in 500 to 1 in 4000 chance of death than feel guilty about their child developing Autism or learning disorders (2-5%) around the same time as being vaccinated. This is doubly so if they know anybody with a child who first started showing signs of ASD around the same time they were being vaccinated.

Yes.. I know that the first signs of ASD often appear at about the same time as kids getting their routine vaccinations- even if they are not getting vaccinated. But I am not a parent, nor have I been ever at risk of becoming bankrupt caring for a child with ASD. If you ever want to reach these people, you will have to start understanding that their risk assessments are as rational as your own. Bullying, mocking or patronizing them is just going to ensure that some greedy charlatans are going to take advantage of their vulnerability. Then again, most ardent pro-vaxxers are just in it for the virtue display and feeling superior. Here is a novel idea.. make sure that everyone has comprehensive universal healthcare and people with disabilities and chronic illness are well cared for and not exploited for financial gains.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 2

April 2, 2019 29 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how feminism started and thrives in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire for maintaining racial purity- which is another way of saying that feminism (as we know it today) has always been strongly associated with, and grown out of, colonialism and racism. I first noticed this connection almost two decades ago due to an interesting combination of circumstances. As some readers might know, that is when I moved here to do graduate school. Anyway.. since scientific research is a multi-national endeavor, I quickly noticed an interesting pattern namely, that the willingness of a guy to debase himself for women was not universal- even among white men.

For example- it was unusual to see men of eastern European or Mediterranean origins fawning over women (even attractive ones) at anywhere near the levels displayed by ‘local’ men for borderline ugly women. And let us be clear about something, science does not attract ‘alpha’ men- but even there the difference between those from Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries vs rest of Europe and the World was very obvious. I also noticed something else which, at first, was peculiar. Local men in these now-declining Anglo-Saxon (A-S) countries do not ascribe agency to women, or do so in an unusual manner. Now, let me explain that sentence in some detail. See.. men from most countries around the world see women as being capable of making their own decisions- whether those turn out to be good, bad, sad or just plain stupid.

However men from A-S counties are desperate to rationalize any bad, sad or stupid decision made by a woman as not her decision. These men always ascribe external agency to a woman’s bad decisions while always invoking her own agency to explain the good ones. In other words, every stupid, bad and self-destructive decision made by a white woman is not her fault, while every OK decision is proof of her competence. Some of you might say that this is further proof of feminism brainwashing those men. I, however, disagree. The whole trope of “women are always right and never responsible for bad decisions” has a much longer history in A-S countries than feminism. In fact, the idea that white women (but not black or brown women) are not responsible for their bad decisions can be found in English literature as far back as mid 1800s, decades before feminism was even a thing. In other words, it preceded feminism.

Don’t believe me? Read a few novel, novellas and short stories from that period- especially those which also contain non-white female characters. You will quickly see that white women are always portrayed as pure, kind and good while non-white women are shown as evil, conniving and animalistic. Contrast this to the depiction of women in the mythology and folklore of other cultures. Were women depicted as always good in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, folklore or literature? What about Chinese, Japanese or Korean mythology and folklore? What about Indian or middle-eastern mythology and folklore? Heck.. even continental European folklore and stories, such as the Brothers Grimm collection did not depict women as inherently good. My point is that most cultures throughout human history never saw women as inherently pure, good, faultless etc. But after early 1800s this became the default view in A-S and later Scandinavian countries.

But what does this have to do with the world of 2019- at least as it exists in A-S countries? Well.. let me ask you another set of questions- would laws favoring women in divorce and child-custody etc exist without a large number of white men stupid enough to willingly believe and support hilarious myths such as the inherent “purity”, “goodness”, “desirability” etc of white women? Would all that talk about how women make less than men and deserve affirmative action exist without a large percentage of white men (in those countries) willing to believe in the myth of white women being inherently deserving and virtuous? And why is the myth that all men are sexual deviants with an interest in children almost exclusive to A-S and Scandinavian countries.

Conversely, why are men from other parts of the world far more willing to acknowledge that gold-digging and other forms of parasitic behavior is common among women? Why are they also far more willing to acknowledge that women can be as screwed up in the head as men- and often more so. Why are they far less inclined to obsessively seek female approval for their behavior and decisions? Are you starting to see a trend? In case you aren’t, let me spell it out for you- a lot of the behavioral patterns displayed by white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries are older than feminism, though they do arise from the same toxic pond of colonialism and racism. It is these patterns which enabled and supported the rise of feminism in those countries.

A lot of behavior displayed by men in these countries, traditionally ascribed to evolutionary psychology bullshit such as eggs being more expensive than sperm, is in reality largely restricted to those countries. The thing is.. outside of these countries, the world is a very different place. This is not say that other countries do not have legal equality of the sexes. Indeed, one can argue than east-European communist countries had far more real sexual equality than A-S countries. However this equality never led to university departments of women studies, atrocious divorce and child-custody laws, hordes of SJWs, constant empty talk of “empowerment” and men being seen as innate sexual predators. Any you why.. because those countries did not have the pre-existing legacy of colonialism-derived racism.

In the next part of this series, I will write about why most white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries still willingly and diligently keep polishing the turd of white women supremacy aka feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 1

March 21, 2019 34 comments

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

Instead, feminism in Anglo countries started a project to gain primacy for rich and bourgeoisie white women. Don’t believe me? Did you know that luminaries of the suffragette movement were super racist white women? Also this fact is really well known in addition to causing a host of practical problems in the past. But it gets worse, if you can believe it. White suffragettes were into stuff like eugenics and forced sterilization, seriously racist views about black and asian men and a whole lot of other stuff which would get them labelled as a hate group today. All of this does however bring us to the next logical question: Why were Anglo, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian countries, such hotspots for Feminism? Why were other European countries full of equally racist losers, such as Germany or Italy, never that much into Feminism?

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (a he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to the accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say as compared to their counterparts in other (still) white-majority countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (often less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries widely recognized as far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it has or had and whether it was a society based in racial-apartheid (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. This is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand- who seem to largely copy whatever occurs in USA. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths which people, who get lucky, have to invent to justify their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of large-scale internal civil strife in countries such as India and China- they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they owe their fortunes to luck. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the British empire started consolidating.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if it somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for maintaining racial hierarchy and hence purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were rich racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. This is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire until the 1890s- this had much to do with it being not necessary. Westward expansion until early 20th century was just way easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

Understanding the Real History Behind ‘Wolfenstein’ Video Game Series

January 28, 2019 8 comments

Almost anybody who has played video games, with some regularity, over the past two decades has gone through at least one release in the long-running ‘Wolfenstein‘ game series. My personal favorites in that series are Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: The New Order. Perhaps some of you might be aware that the overall plot and environment of most games in that series is based in a somewhat fanciful extrapolation of reality. While nobody is claiming that reanimated mummies, the raised undead or fire zombies are real, a lot of what is found in the most popular releases of that series (specifically Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus) are based in real events, facts, persons and possibilities.

For example, one of the central elements of ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ involves the player trying to stop attempts by Nazis (especially Heinrich Himmler) from resurrecting ‘Heinrich the Fowler‘- who also happens to be final boss of that game. It just so happens that Himmler was deeply into a lot of mystical BS and had a peculiar obsession with that particular Saxon king from 10th century AD. Similarly one of the mini-bosses in that game, Marianna Blavatsky, is a sendup of Helena Blavatsky– a real life “psychic” medium from late 19th century whose teachings had a major (if unintentional) influence of development of the belief system behind certain parts of Nazi ideology. In fact, here is a post which talks about some of this from 2006.

Himmler, when he was not planning mass murder, was into a lot of mystical stuff. For example, he was a big supporter of pre-ww2 expeditions into Tibet and other “archaeological” projects to establish the veracity of his beliefs. He was also a big supporter of what is now called ‘Nazi archaeology‘. It is also true that many senior scientists and engineers in that regime found Himmler’s forays into mysticism amusing, to put if mildly, but never confronted him publicly because of his position. Did I mention that Castle Wolfenstein is based on Castle Wewelsburg, though its location is influenced by that of Kehlsteinhaus. Furthermore, many of the advanced weapon systems depicted in the 2001 game are based in reality.

Similarly, later releases of that game such as ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’ (2014) are based on pretty decent extrapolations of what might have happened if funny-mustache guy and his flunkies had been more competent. While we are unlikely to have seen giant robots driven by brains or super laser guns- the game does a pretty good job of capturing the type of society and world which would have resulted from Nazi Germany wining WW2 or achieving a stalemate that was equivalent to victory. In that respect they do a much better job at writing believable alternate history than ‘The Man in the High Castle‘ series by Amazon.

Now let me ask you a question.. Have you ever wondered about the convergence of personalities, zeitgeist and events which ultimately led to the Nazi Ideology? As it turns out the answer is not straightforward and it all starts about 50 years before they came to power. To make a very long story short, the original impetus for popularity of mystical beliefs which would one day become Nazism started out as a reaction to socio-economic displacement caused by Industrial revolution in Germany. The initial popularizers of those ideas, such as the Helena Blavatsky, were probably into it to become famous and make a few bucks. In fact, this moment should be seen as German equivalent of the spiritualism craze that swept Britain between the 1870s-1930s.

Racism and belief in Eugenics were also not unique to Germany, during that era. Some of you might know that Nazi Germany got a lot of its ideas about Race and Eugenics from USA. Social Darwinism, too, had its roots in Britain and USA. Which brings us to the next question- Why did Nazism develop in 1920-145 era Germany and not.. say.. in USA or Britain? The answer to that question requires us to understand something important and relevant, even today.The precursor to Nazi regime, aka the Wiemar republic, was fine with then contemporary levels of racism, anti-semitism, eugenics etc. But they slowly lost, over a period of over ten years, all of their credibility with most people in that country. Also the rich in Germany preferred fascists over socialists.

And that is how funny-mustache guy and his flunkies got in power. It certainly helped that were able to combine all those new-ish currents of belief and ideology into a somewhat coherent ideology. While a lot of videos on YT suffer from YouTube face, overenthusiastic presenters and poorly researched bits by idiots with a British accent, some are better. So here are two long clips (unfortunately containing poor quality footage) which do a very good and objective job of explaining how various streams of Nazi ideology combined into their final form. They are a bit on the longish side, but totally worth the time.

Clip 1 (about 51 minutes long)

Clip 2 (about 54 minutes long)

What do you think? Comments?

On Moves to Brand Masculinity of Men in West as ‘Toxic’: Nov 26, 2017

November 26, 2017 39 comments

Many readers of my blog might have noticed a recent rash of articles, in both traditional and online media, about how masculinity is somehow inherently ‘toxic’. In case you haven’t seen them, here is very short list of these hilarious opinion pieces: Funny Link 1, Funny Link 2 and Funny Link 3. I am sure that most have also seen links to other similar and equally hilarious write-ups on that topic in their FaceBook and Twitter newsfeeds. But poking fun at unintentionally comic articles is not the main focus of this post, though many are highly entertaining to read.

Let me, instead, begin by asking you a simple question: since when has masculinity been seen as ‘toxic’ in western countries? Most of you might select a time between say.. 1968 to sometime within the last few years. However, as I shall shortly demonstrate, those dates and the thinking behind selecting them is not based in reality. Masculinity, you see, has always been toxic in the ‘west’ as long as it was the masculinity of non-white men. In case you don’t believe it, have a look at the disproportionate number of black men lynched for alleged sexual ‘crimes’ against white women in the pre-WW2 USA. Or look at how the behavior (sexual and otherwise) of black men is viewed and treated in USA.

You could also look at how the sexuality of men from other non-white groups has been traditionally depicted in books, films, TV shows and other forms of popular entertainment. I mean.. can you think of even one semi-well known film or TV show that depicts east-Asian men as attractive or desirable? What about non-white Mexican men? Or what about men of Indian descent? I can reel of a list of characters within american popular media based around negative stereotypes of non-white men. Somehow, all of these negative stereotypes which border on dehumanization and demonization never caused anything more than a few polite disagreements… because, doing so was considered perfectly acceptable for the previous and now rapidly waning majority- especially white men.

But reality, you see, often displays a sense of bitter irony. Many of the same tropes used to dehumanize non-white men and demonize their sexuality have in recent years been turned at full blast towards white men. Then again, attempts to nurture proverbial poisonous snakes in the hopes that they will bite only ‘other’ people always ends the same way. This process is also generally similar to how western attempts to create civil and ethnic strife in other countries ultimately cause the same within their own borders. Or how the ‘War on Terror’ in other countries becomes the incarceration-surveillance state for those idiots who supported the former. Or how welfare, free trade and free-market “reforms” meant to hurt black people have now fucked over lots of white people too.

Some of you might say that what I written until now is too non-specific. I mean.. which tropes am I talking about? and how do they apply to the current situation?

So here it goes. Consider how ‘non-alpha’ white men (aka the majority) risk getting accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape if the women in question either does not find them attractive, thinks they are “creepy” or has regrets after the fact. That particular type of demonizing male sexuality in USA started with black men- for reasons that are too obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of american history. As some of you know, talking and flirting with white women and having sex with them resulted in black men being accused of identical ‘crimes’- even if nothing non-consensual had occurred. The fact that most white men are now treated that way is both funny and richly deserved.

Or consider how mere accusations of sexual impropriety are now enough to destroy careers of white men. Or how white women are supposed to be always truthful when they make such accusations. Both tropes trace their origins to what occurred to black and other non-white men in previous eras. It is darkly funny to watch most white men get railroaded the same way as they once did to others. It is also hard to feel sympathy for those who cheered on and participated in such mob behavior under the mistaken belief that they would be never affected by such injustices. I mean.. if public trials based on one-sided accounts were ok when the accused were non-white men, what is wrong with continuing that ‘tradition’ when the accused are white men?

Then there is the issue of many white men now being seen as less than worthy for having sex with women. And once again, this is the extension of a trope which was previously applied to non-white men (especially east-Asian and Indian). Of course, almost everybody else in the ‘west’ was perfectly fine when the men not deemed worthy of having female sexual partners were non-white. As it turns out, that trope also spread far beyond the groups it was originally meant to marginalize. And that is why it is amusing to watch all those mediocre (white) men complaining about being treated as undesirable and less-than-human by white women. Then again, thinking beyond the short-term is rather uncommon in human beings- irrespective of race and ethnicity.

What do you think? Comments?

USA Lacks Realistic Strategy Towards DPRKs Nuclear ICBM Program: 1

September 24, 2017 57 comments

Let me begin this post by posing a fairly straightforward question: Is the current strategy of USA, Japan and South Korea towards the nuclear and missile programs of DPRK (let alone the government of that country) based in reality? You might have already figured out that my short version of the answer is a big “NO”.

One of my previous post on this general topic did explore how racism and magical thinking have historically shaped american policy towards DPRK. It largely focuses on how we reached this point and why miscalculations due to lazy thinking could have very serious effects on destinies of multiple countries involved in the current standoff.

But coming back to the topic at hand, let us talk about the bunch of delusions that pass for american “strategy” towards the nuclear and missile program of DPRK. I will also talk about how the delusional policies of USA reinforce the equally nutty policies of Japan and South Korea on those issues.

The official stance of USA is that it will not negotiate with DPRK unless the later agrees to give up its nuclear weapons and missiles. Now, even a half-sensible person will immediately recognize that DPRK is simply not going to give up its most cost-effective insurance policies against armed invasion or “color revolution” by USA and its allies.

Moreover, the history of interactions between DPRK and USA- specifically the unsuccessful american attempt to kill all north Koreans during the Korean war in the early 1950s and the unwillingness of USA to fulfill its end of the 1994 nuclear agreement, make it almost impossible for them to trust the USA.

It is also important to understand that DPRKs relations with China and Russia have, over the years, had their own ups and downs. This is why regime in Pyongyang has always been so obsessed with self-reliance and self-sufficiency. The concept of Juche is much more than a simple feel good slogan for them.

So now let us talk about how the USA and its east-asian allies have responded to DPRKs nuclear and missile program since 2006, when it conducted its first nuclear test. But first a little relevant history..

In late-1994, DPRK agreed to freeze its nuclear weapon program in exchange for urgently needed fuel oil, two somewhat ‘proliferation-resistant’ nuclear reactors and future normalization of political and economic relations and a future guarantee that USA would not attack DPRK or attempt regime change in Pyongyang.

However, USA was never serious about sticking to its end of the so-called “Agreed Framework” and after 3-4 years, it became obvious that they were trying take DPRK for a ride. In response, DPRK slowly but surely went about restarting its nuclear weapon program. Long story short.. by early 2002, that agreement was dead when Bush43 officially labelled DPRK as part of the “axis of evil”.

The most important lesson DPRK learned from this episode can be stated as follows: Any agreement with USA is not worth the piece of paper it is written on unless you have the ability to credibly threaten them with nuclear weapons for breaking the agreement. I would go so far as to say that after January 2002, it became virtually impossible for DPRK to ever give up nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them.

Sure.. there were a few attempts after 2002 to restart talks on that or similar agreements, but it was obvious to external observers they were not destined (or even meant) to succeed. However the biggest change in DPRKs policy in both areas came after Kim Jong-un replaced his father, Kim Jong-il. But why would that be so? Why would the son take a far more aggressive stand on these issues than his father?

I believe that it comes down to the era in which they grew up. Both Kim Jong-un’s father and grandfather grew up in an era where white people from predominantly white countries lorded over the world and appeared invincible. He however grew up in an era and environment where he was able to see that white people from predominantly white countries were no smarter, competent or better than somebody like him.

Unlike his father and grandfather, he came of age in an era where the ‘west’ is in terminal decline. He also saw that non-white countries around the world, including neighboring China, were taking the ‘west’ to the cleaners. It is therefore not surprising that after taking over from his father, he decided to pour a lot of personal and resources into the nuclear and missile program.

Interestingly, he did the same for the civilian sectors of DPRK- which suggests that he has a pretty clear plan of action. However western “experts” spend all their time hyping up questionable accounts of his treatment of people who fell out of his favor and masturbate themselves to thoughts of him being a stupid and ego-driven person, when all objective evidence shows him to be a competent, if ruthless, leader.

That is not to say that he is a great human being, but then again Eisenhower was responsible for the death of over 3 million civilians in Korea, Nixon for 3-5 million in Cambodia and Vietnam and Bush43 for about 1 million in Iraq and Afghanistan. My point is that he is no better, or worse, than any generic american president.

In the upcoming post of this series, I will explore how the unwillingness of establishment in USA to confront the fact that they are living in 2017 rather than 1994 is making them do really stupid and useless things which are diminishing their credibility in other countries. I will also talk about how the policies of Japan and South Korea towards DPRK are also based in a strange combination of delusion and make-believe.

What do you think? Comments?

My Opinion about the Ancient Astronaut Theory: 1

May 27, 2017 7 comments

In the previous post, I wrote about my thoughts on why tv shows about “ancient astronauts” are still popular and what that says about the popular mood in the west. The main point I was trying to make is that belief in “ancient astronauts” is the secular version of belief in existence of traditional gods and other mystical/ mythical beings in a previous era. But what about the central question.. you know.. is the “ancient astronaut” theory correct or even feasible?

My short answer is: Yes, but with certain caveats.

The longer version is a bit more complicated and will not make people on either side of the issue happy. But then again, I do not write this blog to make people happy. I simply give you my opinion about issues- whether it is about how to use escorts, the nature of “civilization” and human beings or some recent controversial event. Also unlike many others (especially credentialed morons) I explore a number of alternate possibilities in a systematic manner- even if I do not care about them.

Let us start by trying to answer the first major question: Do extraterrestrial species capable on interstellar travel exist?

The answer to the first major question starts with estimating the likelihood of life (of any kind) on planets other than earth- either in our galaxy or in neighboring galaxies. If you regard life as a series of complex chemical process which can arise under some set of environmental conditions and with a certain probability, then our galaxy (and the rest of the universe) is full of planets which harbor life in some form or the other- even if it is largely in the form of single-celled organisms.

I am not, therefore, claiming that the universe is full of planets hosting life forms with self-awareness and the ability to travel between star systems. Having said that, it is very likely that given enough time, a small minority of planets harboring life (in any form) will go on to host more complex multi-cellular and differentiated forms such as those seen in fossil record of earth.

To make a long story short- if you believe that life is a chemical process based in probability, given sufficient time a small (but not insignificant) number of planets will eventually host intelligent and self-aware species. If we take this idea to its logical conclusion, it is almost certain that there have been multiple independent instances of self-aware species attaining levels of technology which make it possible for them to travel between stars.

Provided they do not subsequently destroy themselves through war, ego or greed- such species could end up becoming very long-lived. It also goes without saying that extraterrestrial species capable of interstellar travel would also have the technology to be basically immortal- for all practical purposes. In other words, extraterrestrial species capable on interstellar travel are an inevitable consequence of life being a chemical process whose creation and evolution are governed by chance and probability.

But would such extraterrestrial species want to visit earth and chill with human beings or somehow influence our evolution?

This particular question has two parts. Firstly, would they explore or visit earth or other planets in the first place? Secondly, would they take a special interest in human beings to the point of deliberately interacting with them or influencing their evolution?

It goes without saying that any species which has developed the capability for interstellar travel will use it to explore their stellar neighborhood. Over time, such species will end up exploring a larger and larger volume of their (and our) galaxy. It is almost inevitable, given sufficient time, that one or more spacefaring species will come across the solar system and discover earth.

Now, this could have occurred 2 billion years ago or it could happen tomorrow morning. My point is that, the discovery of earth by such spacefaring extraterrestrial species is also almost inevitable. Also, my hunch is that such a discovery is far more likely to occur via indirect means (space probes) than direct ones (actual visits).

But would they want to intentionally interact with human beings or influence their evolution or technological development?

Well.. let me ask you a counter question. Would you try to communicate with termites in some termite hill you came across when you were on vacation in some exotic part of the world? Sure, you might take a few photos of the mound and perhaps even briefly study a very small percentage of its inhabitants. But at the end of the day, you simply wont’t care about some species on the other side of your world that poses no challenge or possibility for genuine interaction with yourself.

Similarly, it is very unlikely that extraterrestrial species capable of interstellar travel would demonstrate serious interest in human beings unless we reach a technological level where worthwhile and genuine interaction is possible. This is not to say that there would be no interaction whatsoever. However it is very likely that such interaction would be sporadic and somewhat accidental rather than sustained and methodical.

In other words, accounts of extraterrestrial contact which fit the sporadic and accidental contact pattern are far more credible than those which recall extended contact between extraterrestrials and human beings. So the Sumerian myth of Adapa is much more likely to be based on an actual instance of such contact than extraterrestrial being involved in building of Giza pyramid complex. The description of Vimanas in ancient Hindu and Buddhist texts are pretty close to what one might expect for spacecraft capable of landing on, and taking off, from planets such as earth.

It is also worthwhile to note that instances of non-natural objects flying in a controlled manner in the sky have been reported since the 2nd millenium BC. More than a few of these accounts contain details that are just too peculiar to be explained as natural phenomena or hallucinations. Moreover, these accounts document sporadic and very brief contact with appear to be probes capable of flying in the atmosphere.

To summarize, I think that extraterrestrial species capable of travelling between star systems are almost inevitable. Furthermore, if such species exist (very likely) they are almost certainly aware of the existence of earth and have likely visited it in some manner on more than one occasion. It also likely that some instances of such brief visits or encounters have been documented, albeit in a distorted form, within the mythological narratives of multiple tribes or nations. I am however very skeptical of accounts which suggest extraterrestrials making extended or systemic contact with humans.

What do you think? Comments?

Why was USA Unable to Win Korean War in the 1950s: Apr 22, 2017

April 22, 2017 13 comments

Events in the previous few weeks have shown, with unusual clarity, that the conflict between N.Korea and USA which started in 1950 is still ongoing. While it is true that there has been no large-scale fighting between the N.Korea and USA (or its proxy S. Korea) since an armistice was signed in 1954, it is fair to say that things have never gone to back to normal in that part of the world. Between the annual military exercises by S. Korea and USA and counter mobilizations by N. Korea, the situation in that part of the world is still potentially volatile, and has been so for a long time. It certainly does not help that leaders of all countries involved have a habit of speaking past each other.

While it is highly unlikely that either N. Korea or S. Korea will ever resume that war on their own accord, persistent meddling by USA in that part of the world (as in many others) make it far more likely than otherwise. As many of you also know, such an event would be disastrous for both N. Korea, S. Korea and potentially Japan- basically all involved countries within the range of older and well-tested N. Korean nuclear tipped missiles. Even the USA would not be able to come out well, since any use of nukes by USA would ensure that every country capable of building nuclear weapons would do so immediately. To put it another way, such a war would be an epic disaster on multiple levels and for all parties involved.

But have you ever asked yourself- how did things in that part of the world get so crazy in the first place? Why did the Korean war start and why did countries such as USA, China, Russia and many others get involved in it? But perhaps most importantly.. why was USA unable to win the Korean war just a few years after it was able to win WW2 against Japan and to a lesser extent against Germany?

To better understand the many reasons USA was unable to win the Korean war in the 1950s, it is necessary to first appreciate that the Korean war was the beginning of the end for white-majority countries being able to dominate the rest of the world via military force. It is no exaggeration to say the “west” has never since been able to win against a determined and mobilized non-white adversary since that time. But why not? Was it because the “west” became softer and more humane.. or any other bullshit reasons peddled by CONservatives and other assorted jingoistic idiots in USA?

Let us look at facts about the Korean war as they have been acknowledged by official sources in USA. It is known, for example that USA dropped more tons of bombs on N. Korea during early stages of Korean war than they did on Japan during the entirety of WW2. It is also a fact that USA bombed and destroyed every building in almost every single N. Korean city. It is also a fact that bombing by USA killed somewhere between a third and fifth of the N. Korean population. Here is an article with a slightly longer explanation of what USA did in the Korean war.

In other words, the inability of USA to win the Korean war was not due to it being ‘soft’ or ‘humane’. In fact, USA did something lost the Vietnam war in spite of doing something similar in Vietnam and Cambodia during the war. Another more recent example of this phenomenon is the USA losing the Iraq war even after directly and indirectly killing over a million Iraqis between 1991 and today.

So, why was the USA unable to win the Korean war? There was certainly no shortage of bombs, aircraft, tanks, soldiers, guns or even large staging areas and bases close to the theater of conflict. Yet, for reasons I shall get into soon, the best they could achieve was an armistice where the new boundary between the two Koreas was almost identical to the pre-war one. Why didn’t bombing N.Korea heavily in the first few months of war and killing people at higher percentages than in Germany and Japan during WW2 translate into a decisive military victory? Why did the military strategy behind american success in WW2 fail so quickly after that war was over? And why has it subsequently failed and in every war since then?

Well.. here are the reasons, in no particular order, behind the inability of USA and other western countries to win a war against non-white countries since the end of WW2. Regular readers of my blog might realize that some of my older posts have briefly touched on a couple of them.

1] Wars in which the local population of a country or region have a personal stake are very different from wars pursued by elites in those countries. For example, Saddam Hussein’s habit of promoting his own ethnic group in Iraq and getting into unwinnable wars with huge human costs had greatly diminished his popularity among most Iraqis a few years before 1991. That is why the Iraqi armed forces gave up fighting and mass-deserted so readily in 1991 and 2003. Contrast this to the unremitting armed resistance by Iraqis (especially Sunni Arabs) to american occupation from 2003 onward which were only temporarily suppressed between 2007-2009 by bribing Iraqis on a massive scale to not kill american soldiers.

My point is that, the Korean war was largely seen by the local population (especially in N.Korea) as an attempt to reintegrate the country and expel foreigners who had humiliated and almost enslaved them for a couple of generations. In case you do not know what I am talking about.. read a bit about all the wonderful stuff that went on in Korea under Japanese rule between 1910 and 1945. Koreans had, and have, every right to be angry about their treatment under Japanese colonization. Perhaps more importantly, the post-1945 occupation by USA of southern regions of Korea and their multiple attempts to install puppet governments within a short period while making no attempt to help rebuild the country made them look just like the previous Japanese colonizers of that country.

It is therefore no surprise that Kim Il-Sung and his followers had far less trouble convincing his own people to fight foreign occupiers of their country than getting China and Russia to provide military and other assistance for doing so. In many ways, this situation is very similar to what occurred in Vietnam a decade or two later. While we can certainly argue about whether the elder Kim was a “good guy” or “bad guy” it is clear that he had extensive popular support within the northern half of Korea in the early 1950s. In other words, the Korean war was about USA fighting an entire people rather than a system of governance- like they had in Germany and Japan.

2] The american strategy of leveling N. Korean cities by massive aerial bombing was ineffective and supremely counterproductive. As mentioned previously in this post, the USAF was involved in bombing N. Korean cities on a massive scale in the first few months of the war. However, unlike in Germany and Japan during WW2, massive and indiscriminate bombing of cities was not effective in disrupting the N. Korean war effort- largely because all their supplies and weapons were coming in from adjacent countries such as China and Russia. These mass bombing raids did, however, make many more N. Koreans willing to fight to the bitter end. To put it another way, mass bombing of cities and heavy casualties made it impossible for N. Korea and USA to reach a negotiated end to that war.

You might recall that the USA did something similar in Vietnam and Cambodia a decade or so after the Korean war and the end results were rather similar. In other words, aerial bombardment by conventional weapons is incapable of winning wars against adversaries who are not centralized and have the ability to keep on importing weapons and other supplies. Aerial bombardment, if anything, creates more popular support for the cause for which they are being bombarded. This is borne out by the continued inability of USA to win against the Taliban in Afghanistan, various tribal groups in Yemen, Iraq.. the list goes on and on. Bombing non-white people in faraway places does however create millions of jobs in USA and massively enrich a very small number of people. But that is a topic for another post.

3] Thirdly, the level of weapon technology of countries and groups fighting USA is within the same bracket. Colonial wars in 18th and 19th century typically saw Africans with spears mass charging white men with rifles and machine guns or Asians with far inferior gunpowder weapons and tactics fighting against people with better technology and organisation. Somewhere between WW1 and WW2, this started changing as “western” weapon technology and tactics diffused through the rest of the world. Consequently, white soldiers of a western power now face non-whites who posses weapons in the same technology bracket and tactics to match them. Furthermore, their non-white opponents have a much better understanding of their environment and motivation to keep on fighting.

The overall point I am trying to make in this post is a number of large-scale and systemic changes have made it impossible for USA, or any other western country, to win a military confrontation that is not on their own soil. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population of western countries, especially the USA, still harbor the delusional belief that they can win military victories in other countries. More regrettably, if predictably, the military-industrial complex in countries such as USA keep on fueling the popular delusional idea that their extra shiny toys can win wars against people with more of the less shinier toys. I just don’t see it ending well for USA as a country or other governments stupid enough to support them.

What do you think? Comments?

Reports of Cyberwar against N. Korean Ballistic Missiles are Likely False

April 15, 2017 15 comments

Many of you might have, by now, come across “news” which suggests that the frequent failure of N. Korean ballistic missiles is somehow due to some elaborate “cyberwarfare” by USA. I am sure you must have seen mouth-breathing idiots.. I mean american patriots.. repeat that bullshit because they heard if from some MSM or some ‘alt-media’ shill.. I mean “reliable news sources”. Anyway, the point of this post is to explain why that idea reeks of propaganda and delusion.

But let us be clear about a few things first. It is no secret that N. Korean missiles, either fired by them or in the 1990s by Pakistan, always had a rather high rate of failure. However the reasons behind this rather high rate of failure is immediately obvious to somebody who has read about the general history of developing ballistic missiles and space launch systems. Long story short- it comes down to the choice of fuels.

N. Korean missiles have been traditionally powered by pretty dangerous (but effective) mixtures of old-style hypergolic liquid propellants. Since N. Korean missiles trace their ancestry to Scud missiles, they have traditionally used the same fuel mixture- namely, kerosene and corrosion inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) with UDMH aka unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as the liquid igniter. Once again, to make a long story short- this particular old-style hypergolic mixture does not scale up well for larger and longer-burning rocket motors

Apart from Russia and to some extent China, nobody has been able to mass produce relatively safe ballistic missiles which use hypergolic fuels of any kind. In fact, the rate of success of early american ICBMS using hypergolic fuels in the 1950s and early 1960s was pretty dismal. While it is possible to build pretty reliable space launch systems using more modern hypergolic fuel combinations, making scores of reliable ballistic missiles which use them requires a lot more experience.

That is why the majority of non-Russian (and now even Russian) ICBMS use solid propellants for their first and frequently also the second stage motors.

Returning back to the subject of ballistic missile control and guidance, let us be clear about a few basics. Firstly, the main guidance systems of such missiles is always internal and almost always based on some form of astro-intertial guidance. In case you are interested about the history of the non-computational side of guidance hardware, here is a link: The Soviet Union and Strategic Missile Guidance. Secondly, the computational part of such systems is quite simple and can be built without using integrated circuits, let alone CPUs.

For example, one of first electronic guidance computers for american ICBMS, known as the D-17B, contained 1,521 transistors, 6,282 diodes, 1,116 capacitors, and 504 resistors. Some of the older Russian designs for flight guidance computers on such missiles even used special rugged vacuum tubes instead of transistors. To put it another way, the flight control and guidance systems of ballistic missiles can be made of very rugged and simple electronic components, especially if you do not require a very high degree of targeting accuracy.

It is basically impossible to remotely “hack” a simple, hard-wired and hard-programmed control and guidance computer in which every discrete component can be repeatedly tested with a multi-meter and oscilloscope.

Furthermore, N. Korea is a pretty paranoid and conservative country. Therefore it is almost certain that they use somewhat primitive but extremely reliable indigenous designs. In any case, they seem to be aiming for targeting accuracy that is between 0.5-1% of distance covered- which is within the reach of such systems. It is therefore my opinion that the frequent malfunctions of longer range N. Korean ballistic missiles are largely due to their inability to scale up an obsolete hypergolic rocket engine technology.

Those problems will however go away once they are successful at building large solid fueled rocket engines. Some of you might know that they have already transitioned away from older hypergolic fuels for their newer short-range (upto 1,000 km) missiles. It is only a matter of time before they do so for their longer-range missiles. If things go the way they are going now, it is possible that they might be able to successfully test and start deploying such missiles in the next 2 years.

What do you think? Comments?